DW31415 Page

• I'm really interested in documenting web services better.
• In the last few years, I’ve developed an interest aviation safety.
• I have a BS Mechanical Engineering degree from Penn State.

		The Barnstar of Diplomacy
		Thanks for all your help on the Geography page involving the RfC and clean up. GeogSage 02:40, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Talk:ONE_Championship#RfC_reliability_of_pre-March_2024_Bloody_Elbow_on_ONE_Championship
• Does Michelle Obama meet the criteria for potential 2028 candidates
• Bangladesh Liberation War RfC on article NPOV and accuracy
• Talk:Third_Anglo-Afghan_War#RfC_on_result_in_the_infobox

RfC's are an interesting dispute resolution tool. Wikipedia is guided by a WP:CONSENSUS approach to editing articles. This policy directs us to find compromise and develop articles in a collaborative fashion. At some point, editors may find themselves unable to find common ground. At this point a WP:RFC may be helpful to resolve the question. An RfC invites more editors to comment on a specific question in hopes that more opinions will find a way of answering a particular question.

On Wikipedia, RfC's become more than a mechanism for comment and discussion. They become a means of deciding a question. For example, should Kash Patel be called a conspiracy theorist in the lead sentence? Ideally editors are able to find a way to treat Patel's support for conspiracy theories in a balanced way that reflects the treatment in WP:RS. If not, an editor may open a RfC to seek broader input and ultimately settle the question.

After 30 days, or less if there is an obvious consensus, the opener (or any editor) will place the question on the WP:CR page.

Now things get interesting. Any editor may respond to this request and make a determination of the consensus of participating editors. After observing several RfC's, I notice that closing editors tend to lie on a very wide spectrum in how they interpret the meaning of consensus. Some will treat the comments as votes and apply something resembling a 2/3 super majority standard. If two thirds of respondents prefer an outcome and the minority does not have a stronger, policy-based argument, some closers will side with the majority. Other editors will hold more closely to a traditional consensus standard. If the minority is more than a couple of hold outs and present a reasoned argument, the consensus-focused closers will find no consensus.